Compiled from the twenty-eight volumes of Francisco Suárez’s Opera Omnia, editio nova, D. M. André (ed.), Paris: Vivès, 1856–1878. All passages are direct quotations from the OCR transcripts of the printed texts, located by keyword search and verified in context. Translations are provided immediately after each Latin original.
Preface: The Shape of the Corpus
Francisco Suárez (1548–1617), born in Granada, entered the Society of Jesus in 1564 and became the foremost systematic theologian of the late Scholastic tradition, known as Doctor Eximius. He held chairs at Segovia, Valladolid, Rome, Alcalá, Salamanca, and Coimbra, and his Opera Omnia in twenty-eight volumes covers virtually every domain of Catholic theology and canon law: metaphysics, natural law, the virtues of faith, the Incarnation, the sacraments, eschatology, and political theology.
His Adversus Judaeos passages are not gathered in a single polemical treatise but distributed across the whole corpus, appearing wherever Jewish disbelief, the abrogation of the Mosaic Law, the Passion narrative, ecclesiastical restrictions on Jews, or eschatological prophecy becomes theologically relevant. The density is highest in Vol. 19 (De Incarnatione / De Mysterio Vitae Christi) and Vol. 6 (De Legibus); significant material also appears in Vol. 12 (De Fide), Vol. 16 (De Fide), Vol. 17 (Commentaria in Danielem), and Vol. 24 (De Antichristo).
Suárez’s anti-Jewish passages operate in eight registers:
- Jewish perfidy and blindness — the technical theological term perfidia Judaeorum, the “root of Jewish blindness,” and the distinction between Christian faith and Jewish unbelief as the defining mark of Christian identity.
- Supersessionism — the Old Law declared dead at the Incarnation; the Synagogue buried with honour at Pentecost; Judaism explicitly renamed falsa religio in the era of grace.
- Deicide — the Jewish leaders’ knowledge of Christ’s divine identity, their willful ignorance, their guilt as crucifiers of God, and their sin ranked as the gravest ever committed by human beings.
- Divine punishment — the punishment of Jerusalem foretold in Daniel; the forty-year delay granted for repentance; Jerusalem as the fitting site of the greatest of crimes.
- Canonical restrictions — compulsory attendance at Christian sermons; prohibitions on new Synagogues; Good Friday confinement; the badge; the ban on public office; Christians forbidden from Jewish service.
- Talmud — post-Christ rabbis dismissed as authorities; the Talmudic tractate Sanhedrin cited only to have its “oracle” demoted from prophet to mere rabbi; Hebrew conjectures on cosmic duration dismissed as futile.
- Anti-Zionism — Jewish claims to surviving sceptre and tribal governance in Babylon refuted as fictitious; desolation of Israel decreed to endure until the end of time.
- The Antichrist — Antichrist identified as a Jew of the tribe of Dan; to be received by the Jews as their Messiah; to restore circumcision and Mosaic law; to set his throne in a rebuilt Jerusalem.
Fifty verified passages are presented below, ordered thematically. Each entry gives the original Latin text, a literal English translation, the volume and location source, and a note on theological context.
I. Jewish Perfidy and the Distinction Between Christian Faith and Jewish Disbelief
“Hoc potissimum distat Christiana fides ab Judaeorum perfidia” — Christian Faith Defined Against Jewish Perfidy
Source: Vol. 16, De Fide, Disputatio I, approx. lines 2298–2302
Latin
“Hunc ergo Messiam promissum jam venisse, nullus qui Christiano nomine gloriatur, quantumvis haereticus, negare potest, tum quia hoc potissimum distat Christiana fides ab Judaeorum perfidia: tum etiam quia Christus disertis verbis id affirmavit Joan. 4.”
Translation
“That this promised Messiah has already come, no one who glories in the Christian name — however heretical — can deny; first, because this is precisely what most distinguishes Christian faith from the perfidy of the Jews; and second, because Christ affirmed it in explicit words, John 4.”
Note
Suárez uses the juridical-theological term perfidia — which in the scholastic tradition carries the full weight of deliberate, obstinate rejection of a known truth — as the defining opposite of Christian faith. The sentence structure is formally polemical: to be a Christian at all is to hold what the Jews perfidiously deny.
“Perfidi Judaei” — Perfidious Jews Cast Out of the Kingdom
Source: Vol. 1, Commentary on Matthew 20, approx. line 17332
Latin
“…ut sunt perfidi Judaei — Novissimos autem dicit esse sessuros cum Abraham, Isaac et Jacob in regno caelorum.”
Translation
“…such as are the perfidious Jews — whereas the last, he says, shall sit with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven.”
Note
The patristic formula perfidi Judaei appears here as a matter-of-fact gloss on the Gospel text, without elaboration. Its unremarkable deployment indicates that the epithet had become standard theological vocabulary by Suárez’s time, requiring neither defence nor explanation.
“Radicem Judaicae caecitatis” — The Root of Jewish Blindness, Noted by the Fathers
Source: Vol. 16, De Fide, Disp. I, approx. lines 4286–4308
Latin
“Notarunt hanc radicem Judaicae caecitatis Tertul. in Apologet. adversus gentes, cap. 21. & Cyprian. lib. de idolorum vanitate … Iren. lib. 4. cap. 5 & 6. Origen. lib. 1. contra Celsum … Atque ita solum contra Judaeos ex veteri Testamento, quod ipsi dumtaxat admittunt, haec veritas confirmanda est.”
Translation
“Tertullian … and Cyprian … and Irenaeus … and Origen … have all noted this root of Jewish blindness. … And thus this truth must be confirmed against the Jews from the Old Testament alone, which is the only thing they admit.”
Note
Suárez marshals Tertullian, Cyprian, Irenaeus, and Origen as a patristic consensus on the concept of Jewish caecitas — blindness. The methodological note — argue from the Old Testament alone, since the Jews admit nothing else — is itself a standard adversus Judaeos procedure.
“Triplex est Infidelium genus” — Three Kinds of Infidel; Jews Specially Disputed Against
Source: Vol. 16, De Fide, Disp. II, approx. lines 4310–4313
Latin
“Triplex est Infidelium genus, Haereticorum, Judaeorum, & Sarracenorum. Hoc igitur loco contra Haereticos, & Judaeos, qui Scripturas aliquas admittunt, potissimum disputandum est.”
Translation
“There are three kinds of infidels: heretics, Jews, and Saracens. In this place, therefore, the dispute must be conducted primarily against heretics and Jews, who accept some of the Scriptures.”
Note
The tripartite taxonomy is the standard scholastic classification of infidelity. Suárez’s methodological note assigns a privileged polemical focus to Jews and heretics over Saracens, because they share at least a partial scriptural common ground with Catholics.
II. Supersessionism: The Old Law Dead; the Synagogue Dissolved
“Legem illam fuisse perpetuam somniant Judaei” — Jews Dream the Law Is Perpetual
Source: Vol. 6, De Legibus, Tractatus de Lege Veteri, approx. lines 58481–58487
Latin
“Legem illam fuisse perpetuam somniant Judaei. — Judaeorum sententia et existimatio antiqua fuit legem illam fuisse perpetuam, ita ut nunquam esset abroganda, quamdiu mundus hic et status hominum viatorum duraret: in qua sententia perseverarunt multi ex Pharisaeis, etiam postquam ad fidem…”
Translation
“That that Law was perpetual is what the Jews dream. — The ancient opinion and belief of the Jews was that that Law was perpetual, such that it should never be abrogated so long as this world and the state of wayfaring men should endure; and many of the Pharisees persisted in this opinion, even after [some] came to the faith…”
Note
The verb somniant — “they dream” — is a pointed Scholastic dismissal. It does not merely disagree with the Jewish position but categorises it as a fantasy, a thing believed in sleep rather than by rational argument.
“Mortua est autem synagoga per corpus Christi” — The Synagogue Put to Death Through Christ’s Body
Source: Vol. 6, De Legibus, approx. lines 61771–61773
Latin
“Mortua est autem synagoga per corpus Christi, et consequenter extincta est lex, et omnes qui erant de illo populo liberati sunt a lege viri.”
Translation
“The Synagogue, moreover, was put to death through the body of Christ, and consequently the law was extinguished, and all who belonged to that people were freed from the law of the husband.”
Note
The image is drawn from Paul’s analogy in Romans 7: the Law is a husband to whom the wife (the Synagogue) is bound; the husband’s death dissolves the bond. Suárez applies this to conclude that with Christ’s death the entire legal economy of the Mosaic covenant was formally terminated.
“Synagoga cum sufficienti honore sepulta fuit” — The Synagogue Buried With Sufficient Honour
Source: Vol. 6, De Legibus, approx. lines 64292–64296
Latin
“Est enim longe diversa ratio de tempore post sufficienter praedicatum Evangelium, et de illo priori: nam postea facta est prohibitio, ut dicemus, et Synagoga cum sufficienti honore sepulta fuit.”
Translation
“For the case of the time after the Gospel has been sufficiently preached is far different from the earlier time; for thereafter a prohibition was made, as we shall say, and the Synagogue was buried with sufficient honour.”
Note
The phrase “buried with sufficient honour” draws on the patristic metaphor of Augustine and Jerome: the Mosaic Law was like a corpse honourably interred, but deadly to anyone who thereafter attempted to resurrect it.
“Omnes de illo populo mortificati fuerunt legi” — Supersessionist Typology: Synagogue as Wife Freed by Husband’s Death
Source: Vol. 6, De Legibus, approx. lines 61767–61788
Latin
“Synagoga ipsa, seu Israelitica respublica, seu populus aut imperium, fuisse virum cui singuli de illo populo uniebantur… mortua est autem synagoga per corpus Christi… illa vero mortua, fuit lex mortua, et consequenter omnes de illo populo mortificati fuerunt legi, id est, ab illius jugo liberati.”
Translation
“The Synagogue itself — that is, the Israelite commonwealth, people, or polity — was the husband to whom the individuals of that people were united … the Synagogue, moreover, died through the body of Christ … with her death, the law died, and consequently all of that people were mortified to the law — that is, freed from its yoke.”
Note
Suárez extends the Pauline marriage analogy into a systematic legal formula: the Synagogue was a body politic functioning as a legal husband binding every Jew to the Mosaic covenant. Christ’s death dissolved that corporate body.
“Judaeorum cur modo sit falsa religio” — Judaism Is Now a False Religion
Source: Vol. 13, De Fide, Index entry and Lib. I, cap. II, n. 3; approx. lines 1881–1892
Latin
“Judaeorum cur modo sit falsa religio, tr. 1, l. 1, c. 2, n. 3.”
“…religio Christiana dicitur, imo et unica et sola religio dici potest, quia extra illam nulla esse potest vera religio. Et eodem modo ante legem gratiae synagoga Judaeorum erat vera religio, quamvis non esset universalis, sicut nunc est Ecclesia Catholica…”
Translation
“Why the religion of the Jews is now a false religion, treatise 1, book 1, ch. 2, n. 3.”
“…the Christian religion … can be called the one and only religion, because outside it there can be no true religion. And in the same manner, before the law of grace, the Synagogue of the Jews was a true religion, although it was not universal as the Catholic Church is now…”
Note
The Index entry makes the verdict explicit: cur modo sit falsa religio — “why it is now a false religion.” The body text adds precision: Judaism was once true (before the Incarnation) but has been false since the promulgation of the Gospel.
III. Deicide: The Knowledge, Malice, and Guilt of the Jewish Leaders
“Ex ira atque odio illum interfecisse” — Jewish Leaders Knew Christ and Killed Him Out of Hatred
Source: Vol. 19, De Mysteriis Vitae Christi, Disputatio XXXI, Sect. IV, approx. lines 64313–64317
Latin
“In hac re prima sententia est, Judaeos cognovisse Jesum esse Messiam, et verum Deum, et nihilominus ex ira atque odio, quod contra eum animo conceperant, illum interfecisse.”
Translation
“On this matter, the first opinion is that the Jews knew Jesus to be the Messiah and true God, and that nonetheless, out of the wrath and hatred which they had conceived against him in their hearts, they killed him.”
Note
Suárez presents this as the “first opinion” in a disputed question, then argues it is substantially correct. The combination of full knowledge and deliberate hatred eliminates any mitigating plea of invincible ignorance.
“Non per ignorantiam, sed per invidiam” — The Fathers Testify: Not Ignorance but Envy
Source: Vol. 19, Disp. XXXI, approx. lines 64335–64337
Latin
“Manifestissime (inquit [Beda]) probat Dominus non per ignorantiam, sed per invidiam principes Judaeorum crucifixisse Filium Dei.”
Translation
“The Lord proves most manifestly (says Bede) that the princes of the Jews crucified the Son of God not through ignorance, but through envy.”
Note
Bede’s testimony is adduced as part of a patristic chain confirming the guilty-knowledge verdict. The precision of the contrast — not ignorance but envy — forecloses the one defence that could have reduced the sin from malice to mistake.
“Non ex ignorantia, sed ex malitia Christum cognitum occiderunt” — Christ’s Own Words Confirm Jewish Guilt
Source: Vol. 19, Disp. XXXI, approx. lines 64342–64347
Latin
“Et confirmari haec sententia potest ex verbis Christi, Joann. 15: Si non venissem, et locutus eis non fuissem, peccatum non haberent; nunc autem excusationem non habent de peccato suo, quia et viderunt, et noverunt me, et Patrem meum. Et ideo, c. 12, vocat eos Christus obcaecatos et obduratos; non ergo ex ignorantia, sed ex malitia Christum cognitum occiderunt.”
Translation
“And this opinion can be confirmed by the words of Christ, John 15: ‘If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin, for they have both seen and known me, and my Father.’ And therefore, in ch. 12, Christ calls them blinded and hardened; so it was not from ignorance, but from malice, that they killed Christ whom they had come to know.”
Note
Suárez turns Christ’s own statement into the primary proof-text for Jewish guilty knowledge. The argument is formally strong: Christ himself testifies that his coming removed all excuse.
“Ignorantia affectata non excusat” — Willful Ignorance Aggravates Guilt; Jews as Crucifiers of God
Source: Vol. 19, Q. XLVII, Art. V (ad 3), approx. lines 77776–77786
Latin
“Ignorantia affectata non excusat a culpa, sed magis videtur culpam aggravare; ostendit enim hominem sic vehementer esse affectum ad peccandum, quod vult ignorantiam incurrere, ne peccatum vitet. Et ideo Judaei peccaverunt, non solum ut hominis Christi, sed etiam tanquam Dei crucifixores.”
Translation
“Willful ignorance does not excuse from guilt, but rather seems to aggravate it; for it shows that the man is so vehemently disposed toward sinning that he wishes to incur ignorance lest he avoid the sin. And therefore the Jews sinned not only as killers of Christ the man, but also as crucifiers of God.”
Note
The concept of ignorantia affectata — deliberately cultivated ignorance — closes the last logical escape route: even if the Jews did not know Christ was God, they had arranged not to know, which aggravates rather than diminishes the offence.
“Peccatum eorum fuit gravissimum” — The Sin of the Jewish Leaders Was the Gravest Possible
Source: Vol. 19, Q. XLVII, Art. VI, approx. lines 77822–77836
Latin
“Respondeo dicendum quod sicut dictum est, principes Judaeorum cognoverunt Christum, et si aliqua ignorantia fuit in eis, fuit ignorantia affectata, quae eos non poterat excusare. Et ideo peccatum eorum fuit gravissimum, tum ex genere peccati, tum ex malitia voluntatis. Minores autem Judaei gravissime peccaverunt quantum ad genus peccati; in aliquo tamen diminuebatur eorum peccatum, propter eorum ignorantiam.”
Translation
“I answer that the princes of the Jews knew Christ, and if there was any ignorance in them, it was willful ignorance, which could not excuse them. And therefore their sin was most grave, both by reason of the kind of sin and by reason of the malice of the will. The lesser Jews also sinned most gravely as to the kind of sin; but their sin was in some measure diminished by reason of their ignorance.”
Note
Suárez carefully distinguishes between the priestly leaders and the common people: both sinned gravely, but the leaders’ sin was absolutely without mitigation. This distinction traces directly to Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae III, q. 47, a. 5–6), which Suárez here comments upon and expands.
“Illi occiderunt homines, isti Deum crucifixerunt” — Chrysostom: They Crucified God
Source: Vol. 19, Q. XLVII, Art. VI, approx. lines 77808–77815
Latin
“Sed contra est quod super illud Matth. 23: Et vos implete mensuram patrum vestrorum, dicit Chrysostomus: Quantum ad veritatem excesserunt mensuram patrum suorum; illi enim occiderunt homines, isti Deum crucifixerunt.”
Translation
“But on the contrary, on Matthew 23 (‘And you also fill up the measure of your fathers’), Chrysostom says: ‘In terms of truth they have exceeded the measure of their fathers; for those [fathers] killed men, but these [Jews] crucified God.'”
Note
Chrysostom’s formulation is adduced as a sed contra — a weighty patristic authority against the mitigating view. The escalation — from murdering prophets (the fathers’ sin) to murdering God (the Jews‘ sin) — establishes the Passion as uniquely and categorically the worst crime in history.
“Immane sacrilegium contra justitiam Deo debitam” — The Fourfold Malice of the Killing
Source: Vol. 19, Q. XLVII, Art. VI — Commentarius, n. 2, approx. lines 78052–78075
Latin
“…si consideremus Christum ut innocentem, et ea morte indignum, illud fuit peccatum homicidii et injustitiae. Secundo, considerando Christum quatenus erat Messias promissus a Deo, hominumque redemptor, ut sic occisio ejus habet malitiam impietatis… Tertio, si consideretur quatenus fidei praedicator… ejus occisio habet malitiam infidelitatis… Quarto, potest considerari Christus quatenus Deus erat et homo, et ut sic occisio ejus fuit immane sacrilegium contra justitiam Deo debitam.”
Translation
“For first, if we consider Christ as innocent and undeserving of that death, the act was a sin of homicide and injustice. Second, considering Christ insofar as he was the Messiah promised by God and the redeemer of men, his killing carries the malice of impiety … Third, if he is considered insofar as he was a preacher of the faith … his killing carries the malice of infidelity … Fourth, Christ can be considered insofar as he was God and man, and so his killing was a monstrous sacrilege against the justice owed to God.”
Note
This fourfold analysis resolves the Passion into four analytically distinct species of sin — homicide, impiety, infidelity, sacrilege — each constituting a separate moral enormity. The cumulative effect is to show that no single category captures the full gravity.
“Gravissimum omnium quae ab hominibus unquam commissa sunt” — The Gravest Sin Ever Committed
Source: Vol. 19, Q. XLVII, Art. VI — Commentarius, n. 5, approx. lines 78107–78113
Latin
“Quo tandem fit ut peccatum illud saltem in individuo, consideratis omnibus malitiis, et circumstantiis ejus, possit existimari gravissimum omnium quae ab hominibus unquam commissa sunt.”
Translation
“It follows at last that that sin, considered at least individually, with all its malices and circumstances taken into account, can be esteemed the gravest of all sins ever committed by men.”
Note
This is Suárez’s formal conclusion to his extended analysis of the Passion as a moral act. The verdict is unqualified: the killing of Christ by the Jews was the worst thing ever done.
“Ex invidia et odio … majori duritia et pertinacia” — Sin of the Jewish Pontiffs Greater Than That of Judas
Source: Vol. 19, Q. XLVII, Art. VI — Commentarius, n. 7, approx. lines 78179–78196
Latin
“Cajetan … censet peccatum Judae fuisse gravius … Altera est, quia Judas ex cupiditate, non ex invidia et odio tradidit Christum, sicut principes Judaeorum. His addi potest, quod principes Judaeorum majori duritia et pertinacia in Christo tradendo perdurarunt…”
Translation
“Cajetan considers the sin of Judas to have been graver … But the other reason is that Judas betrayed Christ out of cupidity, not out of envy and hatred, as the princes of the Jews did. To this can be added that the princes of the Jews persevered in greater hardness and obstinacy in handing Christ over …”
Note
Suárez sides with Thomas against Cajetan in rating the Jewish high priests’ sin as greater than Judas’s — because Judas acted from greed, whereas the priests acted from envy and hatred, and because they sustained their obstinacy throughout.
“Omnis haec iniquitas ab illis habuit originem” — All the Iniquity Originated from the Jews
Source: Vol. 19, approx. lines 72820–72826
Latin
“Nihilominus tamen peccatum Judaeorum fuit gravius, quia omnis haec iniquitas ab illis habuit originem; ipsi enim quasi coegerunt illum [Pilatum]; unde ii ex odio peccarunt, ille vero ex timore humano.”
Translation
“Nonetheless the sin of the Jews was graver, because all this iniquity had its origin from them; for they virtually compelled [Pilate]; hence they sinned out of hatred, while he sinned out of human fear.”
Note
By identifying the Jews as the originating cause of Pilate’s capitulation, Suárez removes Pilate as a principal agent and makes the Jews morally responsible for the entire chain of events.
“Neminem posse simpliciter excusari” — None Who Cooperated in Christ’s Death Can Be Excused
Source: Vol. 19, Q. XLVII, Art. VI — Commentarius, n. 5, approx. lines 78079–78085
Latin
“Et ad minimum certum est ex dictis, neminem, ex iis qui ad Christi mortem concurrerunt, posse simpliciter excusari propter ignorantiam a gravissima culpa, saltem homicidii viri sancti et innocentis.”
Translation
“And at the very least it is certain from what has been said that none of those who cooperated in the death of Christ can be simply excused by reason of ignorance from the most grave guilt, at least of the killing of a holy and innocent man.”
Note
This universal conclusion sweeps in not only the Sanhedrin and Pilate but the Roman soldiers and the crowd. No one involved in the Passion escapes Suárez’s net of culpability; only the degree of guilt varies.
“Malitia Judaeorum expunctam” — Justin Martyr: Jews Maliciously Deleted “From the Wood” from Psalm 96
Source: Vol. 19, approx. lines 73178–73184
Latin
“…et malitia Judaeorum expunctam, contendit Justinus Martyr, dial. cont. Triphonem; et ita refert hunc locum Tertul., cont. Judaeos, c. 10 et 12…”
Translation
“…[the words ‘from the wood’] deleted by the malice of the Jews, as Justin Martyr contends in the Dialogue against Trypho; and Tertullian likewise cites this text, Against the Jews, chs. 10 and 12 …”
Note
Suárez reproduces the patristic charge — found in Justin Martyr and Tertullian — that the Jews deliberately excised the words a ligno (“from the wood”) from Psalm 96:10 in order to suppress the prophecy of the Cross.
“Gens tua et Pontifices tui tradiderunt te mihi” — The Demand for Christ’s Blood Falls on the Jews
Source: Vol. 19, Q. XLVII, Art. VI, approx. lines 77855–77863
Latin
“Gens tua, et Pontifices tui tradiderunt te mihi [Joan. 18]. Horum tamen omnium peccatum fuit majus quam Pilati, qui timore Caesaris Christum occidit; et etiam quam peccatum militum, qui de mandato praesidis Christum crucifixerunt, non ex cupiditate, sicut Judas, nec ex invidia et odio, sicut principes sacerdotum.”
Translation
“‘Your people and your high priests handed you over to me’ [John 18]. Yet the sin of all these [Jews] was greater than that of Pilate, who killed Christ out of fear of Caesar; and also greater than the sin of the soldiers, who crucified Christ at the order of the governor, not out of cupidity like Judas, nor out of envy and hatred like the chief priests.”
Note
The citation of John 18:35 — Pilate’s own words acknowledging that the Jews delivered Christ to him — is standard in Suárez’s argument: even the Gentile judge exonerates himself by pointing to Jewish initiative.
IV. Divine Punishment of the Jews for Deicide
“Propter peccatum negandi et occidendi Christum” — Punishment of Jews Foretold for Denying and Killing Christ
Source: Vol. 17, Commentary on Daniel 9, approx. lines 3068–3080
Latin
“Ad majorem vero confirmationem et testimonium prophetiae, attingit etiam supplicium quod eventurum erat Judaeis, propter peccatum negandi et occidendi Christum; non vero dixit illud supplicium futurum intra illas hebdomadas; quin potius cum addidit verbum illud, et usque ad finem perseverabit desolatio, indicavit illud supplicium longo post tempore duraturum.”
Translation
“For greater confirmation and testimony of the prophecy, [the Angel] also touches upon the punishment that was to come upon the Jews, on account of the sin of denying and killing Christ; he did not say that punishment would come within those weeks; rather, when he added the words ‘and until the end desolation shall persist,’ he indicated that that punishment would endure for a long time afterward.”
Note
Suárez presses Daniel’s usque ad finem — until the end — to argue that the Jewish punishment is not merely historical (the 70 AD destruction) but eschatological and permanent.
“Supplicium per quadraginta annos dilatum” — The Punishment of the Jews Delayed Forty Years by Christ’s Prayer
Source: Vol. 19, approx. lines 76544–76551
Latin
“Denique multi existimant, propter hanc Christi orationem, Judaeorum supplicium per quadraginta, et eo amplius annos dilatum esse, ut possent (si vellent) paenitentiam agere, suique peccati remissionem consequi.”
Translation
“Finally, many hold that on account of this prayer of Christ, the punishment of the Jews was delayed for forty and more years, so that they might (if they wished) do penance and obtain remission of their sin.”
Note
The forty-year delay between the Crucifixion and the destruction of Jerusalem (70 AD) is a standard datum in the adversus Judaeos tradition, interpreted as an act of divine mercy. The window of repentance was open; the Jews did not take it; the destruction was therefore fully merited.
“Jerusalem erat quasi Metropolitana civitas Judaeorum” — Jerusalem the Fitting Site for the Greatest Crime
Source: Vol. 19, approx. lines 74192–74204
Latin
“Nam quia Jerusalem erat quasi Metropolitana civitas Judaeorum, in qua erant capita totius Synagogae et principes sacerdotum, et concilium Sanhedrim, oportuit Christum ibi praedicare, et seipsum manifestare. Ex quo secutum est ut ibi etiam fuerit interfectus. Propter quod generalem sententiam protulerat ipse Christus: Non capit Prophetam perire extra Jerusalem, Luc. 13.”
Translation
“For since Jerusalem was the quasi-metropolitan city of the Jews, in which were the heads of the whole Synagogue, the princes of the priests, and the council of the Sanhedrim, it was fitting that Christ preach there and manifest himself. From which it followed that he was also killed there. Because of this Christ himself had pronounced the general verdict: ‘A prophet cannot perish outside Jerusalem,’ Luke 13.”
Note
Suárez treats the geographic coincidence of Christ’s death in Jerusalem not as accidental but as theologically necessary: Jerusalem was the seat of Jewish institutional power, and it was that power that killed Christ.
V. Restrictions on Jews and Their Separation from Christians
“Eadem propositio a Judaeo est perfidia judaica” — Jewish Contrary Proposition Is Perfidy, Not Heresy
Source: Vol. 12, De Fide, approx. lines 57184–57187
Latin
“Eadem propositio contraria fidei prolata a Judaeo est perfidia judaica, non haeretica, quia ille non est haereticus, sed Judaeus.”
Translation
“The same proposition contrary to the faith, when uttered by a Jew, is Jewish perfidy, not heresy, because that man is not a heretic but a Jew.”
Note
Heresy is the corruption of a received Christian faith; perfidia is the wilful rejection of a faith offered and recognized as true. Suárez’s distinction carries distinct canonical and legal consequences for how Jews are to be treated relative to Christian heretics.
“Summi Pontifices cogunt Judaeos” — Compulsory Attendance at Christian Sermons
Source: Vol. 12, De Mediis quibus uti licet ad convertendos, approx. lines 54506–54515
Latin
“Summi Pontifices cogunt Judaeos sibi subditos, ut semel in hebdomada praedicationem fidei audiant, poena imposita his qui audire recusant; qua de re extat Bulla Nicolai III, quae incipit Vineam; et alia Gregorii XIII, quae incipit Sancta mater Ecclesia.”
Translation
“The Supreme Pontiffs compel the Jews subject to them to hear the preaching of the faith once a week, with a penalty imposed on those who refuse to hear it; on which matter there exists the Bull of Nicholas III beginning Vineam, and another of Gregory XIII beginning Sancta mater Ecclesia.”
Note
Suárez approves both bulls — Nicholas III (1278) and Gregory XIII (1584) — as legitimate exercises of papal coercive authority. The citation of both medieval and contemporary precedent signals that this is a live canonical norm in his own time.
“Non permittuntur habere synagogas ecclesiis vicinas” — Canonical Restrictions: New Synagogues, Good Friday Confinement, the Badge
Source: Vol. 12, approx. lines 55770–55797
Latin
“Permittuntur habere antiquas Synagogas et conservare, non tamen novas erigere … non permittuntur habere synagogas ecclesiis Christianorum vicinas … in die Parasceves, in publicum exire vetantur, imo januas et fenestras clausas habere praecipiuntur … praecipiuntur ferre signum quo a fidelibus exterius discernantur; et in universum gravissime puniuntur, si aliquid contra honorem religionis christianae vel faciant, vel prae se ferant.”
Translation
“They are permitted to keep and maintain old Synagogues, but not to erect new ones … they are not permitted to have Synagogues adjacent to churches of Christians … on Good Friday they are forbidden to go out in public; indeed, they are commanded to keep their doors and windows shut … they are commanded to wear a sign by which they may be externally distinguished from the faithful; and in general they are most gravely punished if they do or display anything against the honour of the Christian religion.”
Note
This passage provides the most comprehensive single catalogue in the Opera Omnia of the canonical regime governing Jewish life in Catholic territories, summarising legislation from the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) through Suárez’s own time.
“Prohibentur libri Hebraeorum, qui postea Scripturas corruperunt” — Ancient Rabbinic Books Permitted; Later Books Corrupting Scripture Forbidden
Source: Vol. 12, approx. lines 55797–55803
Latin
“Permittuntur libri antiqui Rabinorum, qui sincere et sine odio christianae religionis scripti fuerunt; prohibentur autem libri Hebraeorum, qui postea Scripturas corruperunt, ut notavit Cajetanus 2. 2, q. 10, art. 11.”
Translation
“The ancient books of the Rabbis, written sincerely and without hatred of the Christian religion, are permitted; but the books of the Hebrews who afterward corrupted the Scriptures are forbidden, as Cajetan noted, Secunda Secundae, q. 10, art. 11.”
Note
The charge that the Talmud and later rabbinic literature “corrupted the Scriptures” is a standard feature of the adversus Judaeos literature, referring primarily to hostile interpretations of messianic texts.
“Fideles non posse esse servos horum infidelium” — Christians May Not Be Servants of Jews
Source: Vol. 12, approx. lines 56215–56232
Latin
“Fideles non posse esse servos horum infidelium, ac proinde potuisse Ecclesiam privare infideles sibi subditos potestate hoc modo super fideles … Item quia inde possunt oriri occasiones blasphemandi, et contemnendi fidem, et faciendi injurias fidelibus.”
Translation
“The faithful cannot be servants of these infidels, and accordingly the Church was able to deprive infidels subject to her of power in this way over the faithful … Also, because from [such servitude] occasions of blaspheming, despising the faith, and doing injury to the faithful can arise.”
Note
Suárez identifies three specific risks from Christian service in Jewish households: blasphemy, contempt of the faith, and injury to the faithful — each constituting an independent canonical ground for the restriction.
“In Concilio Toletano IV excommunicantur” — Jews Forbidden from Public Office; Christians Excommunicated for Granting It
Source: Vol. 12, approx. lines 56205–56233
Latin
“Justinianus prohibuit ne Judaei officia publica gererent respectu fidelium; idem Innocentius III, in cap. Cum sit nimis, de Judaeis … in Concilio Toletano IV, cap. 64, ubi excommunicantur qui haec munera Judaeis committunt; et ratio redditur, quia sub hac occasione fidelibus injurias faciunt.”
Translation
“Justinian prohibited Jews from holding public offices over the faithful; likewise Innocent III … in the Fourth Council of Toledo, ch. 64, those who entrust such offices to Jews are excommunicated; and the reason given is that under this occasion they do injuries to the faithful.”
Note
Suárez traces the prohibition through civil law (Justinian), canon law (Innocent III), and conciliar legislation (Toledo IV), presenting it as a triply reinforced norm.
“Speciem et moralem suspicionem illius esse vitandam” — Christians Forbidden Even the Appearance of Attending Synagogues
Source: Vol. 12, approx. lines 56373–56382
Latin
“Solum annotare oportet non solum veram communicationem, sed etiam speciem et moralem suspicionem illius esse vitandam, qualis esset frequentare synagogas, aut templa infidelium, praesertim eo tempore quo suos ritus celebrant, quia potest generare scandalum et dare occasionem suspicionis quod illa placeant vel approbentur.”
Translation
“One must note that not only actual communication is to be avoided, but even the appearance and moral suspicion of it — such as frequenting Synagogues or temples of infidels, especially at the time when they celebrate their rites, because this can give scandal and occasion for the suspicion that such things are pleasing or approved.”
Note
Suárez extends the prohibition beyond actual participation to mere apparent association. The inclusion of “especially at the time when they celebrate their rites” tightens the restriction to precisely the moments when Jewish worship is most visible.
“Occasiones blasphemandi et contemnendi fidem” — Association with Jews Creates Occasions of Blasphemy Against the Faith
Source: Vol. 12, approx. lines 56229–56231
Latin
“Item quia inde possunt oriri occasiones blasphemandi, et contemnendi fidem, et faciendi injurias fidelibus.”
Translation
“Also, because therefrom occasions can arise of blaspheming and despising the faith, and of doing injuries to the faithful.”
Note
This terse formulation encapsulates the canonical logic of separation: proximity to Jews is itself a danger to the faith of Christians. The three harms — blasphemy, contempt, and injury — escalate from verbal irreverence to active harm.
VI. The Talmud
“Nullius sunt auctoritatis; solum sunt quidam Rabbini” — Post-Christ Rabbis Are of No Authority; They Wrote Only 500 Years Ago
Source: Vol. 19, approx. lines 85348–85352
Latin
“Imprimis auctores et libri qui ad eam probandam afferuntur, nullius sunt auctoritatis; solum enim sunt quidam Rabbini qui ante quingentos tantum annos scripserunt.”
Translation
“First of all, the authors and books adduced to prove this are of no authority; they are merely certain Rabbis who wrote only five hundred years ago.”
Note
Suárez dismisses the rabbinic sources on grounds of recency: post-Talmudic rabbis writing in the medieval period have no claim to the authority of the prophets or even the ancient rabbis.
“Non est oraculum Eliae Prophetae, sed alicujus Rabbini” — The Talmud’s Book Sanhedrin: the Oracle Is “of Some Rabbi,” Not Elijah
Source: Vol. 19, approx. lines 129386–129389
Latin
“Quod habetur in Thalmud, in libro Sanhedrin, cujus verba referunt praedicti auctores. Non est tamen illud oraculum Eliae Prophetae, sed alicujus Rabbini.”
Translation
“This is found in the Talmud, in the book Sanhedrin, whose words the aforementioned authors cite. That oracle, however, is not of the Prophet Elijah, but of some Rabbi.”
Note
Suárez deflates the authority of the cited text by denying it prophetic origin: it is not Elijah speaking but an anonymous rabbi with no canonical standing.
“Tam futiles, ut illas referre supervacaneum sit” — Hebrew Conjectures on the World’s Duration: “So Futile That It Is Superfluous to Recount Them”
Source: Vol. 19, approx. line 129400
Latin
“Alias similes conjecturas addunt Hebraei tam futiles, ut illas referre supervacaneum sit.”
Translation
“The Hebrews add other similar conjectures so futile that it is superfluous to recount them.”
Note
Suárez dismisses the entire body of rabbinic calculation on the cosmic timetable with a single rhetorical gesture: these conjectures do not merit systematic refutation, only contemptuous dismissal.
“Constat etiam ex Talmud, libro Pesachim” — Reference to the Talmudic Tractate Pesachim
Source: Vol. 20, De Sacramentis, approx. lines 18880–18910
Latin
“Quod autem haec ablutio praecedebat Paschalem coenam, constat etiam ex Talmud, libro Pesachim, quam particulam laudat Jansenius…”
Translation
“That this washing preceded the Passover supper is also evident from the Talmud, in the book Pesachim, a passage cited with approval by Jansenius…”
Note
Unlike the previous passages, this reference to the Talmud is antiquarian rather than polemical: Suárez cites Pesachim as a historical source on Jewish Passover customs. It demonstrates his willingness to use rabbinic sources selectively when they serve Christian theological argument.
VII. Against Zionism: No Return; Desolation Perpetual
“Babylonem omnino eversam esse” — Jewish Claim of Surviving Sceptre in Babylon Refuted
Source: Vol. 16, De Fide, approx. lines 5400–5430
Latin
“Sed in primis hoc est fictum; nam Babylonem omnino eversam, et desolatam esse nunc constat: neque Judaei aliqui ibi habitant, qui regnum aut sceptrum habeant.”
Translation
“But in the first place this is a fiction; for Babylon has been entirely overthrown and laid waste, as is now well known; nor do any Jews live there who hold any kingdom or sceptre.”
Note
Suárez is responding to a Jewish counter-argument that tribal governance had survived the Babylonian exile and could still be found in the Diaspora. His refutation is geographic-historical: Babylon no longer exists as a functioning city, so any appeal to a sceptre there is without foundation.
“Digna potius risu quam refutatione” — Jewish Arguments for a Surviving Sceptre: “Worthy of Ridicule Rather Than Refutation”
Source: Vol. 16, De Fide, approx. lines 5455–5480
Latin
“Haec vero omnia digna sunt potius risu quam refutatione … Ficta est ergo haec assertio, sceptrum aliquod in Babylone esse, vel quolibet alio Judaeorum concilio aut collectione.”
Translation
“But all these things are worthy of ridicule rather than refutation … Fictitious therefore is this assertion, that some sceptre exists in Babylon, or in any other council or gathering of Jews.”
Note
The rhetoric of contempt — digna potius risu quam refutatione — frames Jewish messianic-political claims not merely as wrong but as absurd, beneath serious engagement.
“Usque ad finem perseverabit desolatio” — Daniel’s Prophecy: Jewish Desolation to Endure Until the End
Source: Vol. 17, Commentary on Daniel 9, approx. lines 3075–3080
Latin
“…cum addidit verbum illud, et usque ad finem perseverabit desolatio, indicavit illud supplicium longo post tempore duraturum.”
Translation
“…when [the Angel] added the words, ‘and until the end desolation shall persist,’ he indicated that that punishment would endure for a long time afterward.”
Note
Suárez reads Daniel’s usque ad finem as a theologoumenon of indefinite, potentially permanent Jewish exile — a providential condition extending toward the eschatological horizon.
VIII. Theological Enmity Between Jews and Christians
“Ut in exemplum nobis ponantur” — Paul Uses Jews as a Negative Example for Christians
Source: Vol. 6, De Legibus, approx. lines 66001–66010
Latin
“Paulus 1 Cor. 10 commemorat haec de Judaeis dicta et gesta, ut in exemplum nobis ponantur: Haec autem in figura facta sunt nostri, ut non simus concupiscentes malorum, sicut et illi concupierunt.”
Translation
“Paul in 1 Corinthians 10 recalls these things said and done concerning the Jews so that they may be set before us as an example: ‘These things happened to them as a figure for us, that we should not desire evil things, as they also desired.’“
Note
Suárez endorses the Pauline hermeneutic by which the failures of the Jewish people in the wilderness serve as cautionary models for Christians. The Jews function here not as subjects deserving pastoral concern but as types of transgression whose punishment serves Christian pedagogy.
“Judaei non amplius obligabantur” — Christians of Jewish Origin Not More Bound to the Old Law Than Others
Source: Vol. 6, De Legibus, approx. lines 65900–65920
Latin
“Judaei in Christi fide suscepta non amplius obligabantur ad legis veteris observationem, quam caeteri gentiles fideles.”
Translation
“Jews who had received the faith of Christ were no longer bound to the observance of the old law any more than other Gentile believers.”
Note
Not only is the Mosaic Law generally abrogated, but even Jewish Christians have no special obligation to it. The Law is universally dead; ethnic continuity with Israel confers no residual legal duty.
“Haec communicatio cum Judaeis superstitionem involvit” — Communion with Jews Is Superstitious and Against Confession of Faith
Source: Vol. 12, De Fide, approx. lines 55960–55980
Latin
“Nolite jugum ducere cum infidelibus. — Haec communicatio cum Judaeis in rebus sacris et ritibus superstitionem quamdam, aut defectionem a fide involvit.”
Translation
“‘Do not go under the yoke with infidels.’ — This communication with Jews in sacred matters and rites involves a kind of superstition, or defection from the faith.”
Note
Suárez quotes 2 Corinthians 6:14 as a canonical proof-text for the prohibition on Jewish-Christian liturgical fraternisation. The characterisation of such association as defectio a fide — defection from the faith — gives it the gravity of apostasy.
IX. The Jewish Religion Has Ceased; the Temple’s Ruin Is Its Sign
“Judaica religio cessavit, ideo Judaicum templum eversum est” — The Jewish Religion Has Ceased; the Temple Demolished by Divine Providence
Source: Vol. 21, De Oratione, tract. De Templis, approx. lines 98215–98224
Latin
“similiter, quia Judaica religio cessavit, ideo etiam Judaicum templum eversum est; quamvis saepe Judaei illud instaurare conati fuerint, saepe sunt divina providentia et coelestibus signis impediti, ut in historiis Ecclesiasticis vulgare est.”
Translation
“Likewise, because the Jewish religion has ceased, so too was the Jewish temple demolished; although the Jews have often attempted to restore it, they have repeatedly been impeded by divine providence and celestial signs, as is well known in ecclesiastical histories.”
Note
Suárez adduces the Temple’s destruction not as a historical accident but as a divine sign. The reference to “celestial signs” alludes to the famous reports of miraculous fire preventing Julian the Apostate’s reconstruction project in 363 AD — an event that for Suárez confirmed that the abrogation of the Mosaic cult was permanent and providentially enforced.
“Quamdiu status Synagogae duraret, tamdiu eodem modo fieret” — The Synagogue‘s Rites Were Binding Only for Its Duration
Source: Vol. 21, De Eucharistia, tract. De Sacrificio Missae, approx. lines 79865–79875
Latin
“quia sacrificium agni Paschalis ea nocte inchoatum fuit … ex eo vero tempore fuit perpetua lege sanctitum, ut quamdiu status illius populi seu Synagogae duraret, tamdiu eodem modo fieret”
Translation
“The sacrifice of the Paschal lamb was begun on that night … and from that time it was established by perpetual law that so long as the state of that people, or of the Synagogue, endured, it was to be done in the same way — in memory and thanksgiving for the benefit received.”
Note
The phrase quamdiu status Synagogae duraret is the key: the Paschal rite was by design a conditional law, binding only for the duration of the Synagogue‘s existence. Since the Synagogue has ceased, all its ritual obligations have simultaneously ceased.
X. Jews Who Killed Christ “With the Tongue”
“Judaei minus occiderunt Christum lingua, quam si manibus interfecissent” — The Jews Killed Christ No Less by Their Voices Than by Their Hands
Source: Vol. 23, De Censuris, Disp. V, approx. lines 137815–137820
Latin
“neque enim Judaei minus occiderunt Christum lingua, quam si manibus interfecissent, ut Augustinus, in Psalm. 66, annotavit.”
Translation
“The Jews killed Christ no less by their tongue than if they had slain him with their own hands, as Augustine noted on Psalm 66.”
Note
Suárez invokes Augustine’s comment in a canonical context, transferring collective Jewish guilt for the Crucifixion into ecclesiastical law: the Jewish cry Crucifige! is morally equivalent to wielding the hammer.
XI. The Antichrist: Jewish Origin, Jewish Acceptance, Restoration of Circumcision
Vol. 24 (Commentaria ac Disputationes in tertiam partem D. Thomae — De Novissimis, Lib. V, De Antichristo) contains the most concentrated eschatological Adversus Judaeos polemic in the entire Opera Omnia.
“Judaeus futurus sit, et pro Messia a Judaeis suscipiendus” — The Antichrist Will Be a Jew, Received by the Jews as Their Messiah
Source: Vol. 24, De Antichristo, Lib. V, cap. XII, approx. lines 75743–75752
Latin
“Cum enim Judaeus futurus sit, et pro Messia a Judaeis suscipiendus et adorandus, ut paulo post dicemus, per se verisimile est, postquam in Oriente monarchiam usurpaverit, in civitate regia Judaeorum, quam ipse instaurabit, solium suum collocaturum.”
Translation
“For since he [Antichrist] will be a Jew, and is to be received and worshipped by the Jews as their Messiah, as we shall say shortly, it is in itself highly probable that, after he has usurped the monarchy in the East, he will set his throne in the royal city of the Jews, which he himself will restore.”
Note
Suárez presents the Antichrist‘s Jewish identity as in se verisimile — probable in itself — tracing it to a tradition running from Irenaeus through the medieval commentators. The theological logic is that the Jews rejected the true Messiah; they will therefore accept the false one.
“Primum circumcisionem inducet” — The Antichrist Will Restore Circumcision and Mosaic Law
Source: Vol. 24, De Antichristo, approx. lines 75592–75599; citing Gregory of Tours, Hist. Francorum lib. 4
Latin
“Antichristus (ait) primum circumcisionem inducet, se asserens Christum, deinde in templo Hierosolymitano statuam suam collocabit”
Translation
“[Gregory of Tours writes:] ‘The Antichrist will first introduce circumcision, asserting himself to be Christ; then he will place his statue in the temple of Jerusalem.’“
Note
Suárez presents this as an element of ancient and universal Tradition, confirmed by Gregory of Tours, Cyril of Jerusalem, John Damascene, and Severus Sulpicius. The restoration of circumcision by the Antichrist is his primary credential for acceptance by the Jews: he gives them back the rite that Christianity abolished.
“Omittitur tribus Dan, propter Antichristum” — The Tribe of Dan Omitted from the Sealed in Apocalypse 7 on Account of the Antichrist
Source: Vol. 24, approx. line 49755
Latin
“omittitur tribus Dan, propter Antichristum”
Translation
“The tribe of Dan is omitted [from the twelve tribes sealed in Apocalypse 7] on account of the Antichrist.”
Note
Suárez treats the absence of Dan from the 144,000 sealed in Revelation 7 as a deliberate omission signalling the tribe’s eschatological taint: since the Antichrist is to come from Dan, that entire tribe is excluded from the seal of the elect. This reading traces to Irenaeus and was standard in Catholic exegesis.
“Pravos mores et duritiem illius populi” — The Golden-Calf Sin Attributed to “the Corrupt Morals and Hardness of the Jewish People”
Source: Vol. 24, De Ecclesia, approx. lines 2854–2857
Latin
“peccatum illud populi Judaici pertinet ad pravos mores et duritiem illius populi, non ad Ecclesiae defectionem. Tum quia Synagoga non erat Ecclesia Christi”
Translation
“That sin of the Jewish people [worshipping the golden calf] belongs to the corrupt morals and hardness of that people, not to the defection of the Church — partly because the Synagogue was not the Church of Christ.”
Note
Suárez is responding to a Protestant argument that the Synagogue‘s apostasy during the golden-calf episode proves the Church can fail. His refutation sharpens into a characterisation: the golden calf was an expression of the innate duritia — hardness — of the Jewish people, a quality expressed in its persistent rebellion.
XII. Vol. 28 Index — Confirmatory Entries
The final general index of the Opera Omnia (Vol. 28) cross-references the following Adversus Judaeos doctrines across the preceding volumes:
- “Judaei fabulantur” — the Jews fable that Adam had two wives, one of whom was Eve. (index p. 190, §8–9)
- “Legem Mosaicam restituet cum circumcisione” — [the Antichrist] will restore the Mosaic Law together with circumcision. (index p. 1035, §2; vol. 24)
- “Quae fuerit Judaeorum cognitio in Christum non credentium” — what was the knowledge of the Jews who did not believe in Christ. (index p. 496, §7; vol. 19)
- “Imo de facto prohibuit familiaritatem cum Judaeis” — [the Church] has in fact prohibited familiarity with Jews. (index p. 459, §6; vol. 12)
- “Imaginum Dei usus prohibitus erat in Synagoga, ut caeremonia damnosa Judaeis” — the use of images of God was forbidden in the Synagogue as a ceremony harmful to the Jews. (index p. 92, §4)
- “Synagoga quid, et in quo ab Ecclesia differat” — what the Synagogue is, and wherein it differs from the Church. (index p. 244, §1; vol. 12)
End of compilation (vols. 1–28).
Source: R. P. Francisci Suarez e Societate Jesu Opera Omnia, editio nova, D. M. André (ed.), Paris: Vivès, 1856–1878, 28 vols. Passages located by keyword search across full OCR transcripts of all twenty-eight volumes. The complete digitised edition is available via the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/search?query=creator%3A%22Suarez%2C+Francisco%2C+1548-1617%22+opera+omnia